P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and injunction is the appellant in this Second Appeal. The facts relevant for decision of the Second Appeal are the following:

Plaint A schedule property belonged to deceased Narayana Hegde, the husband of the first plaintiff and the father of plaintiffs 2 to 5. On the death of Narayana Hegde, plaint A schedule property devolved on the plaintiffs. Plaint B schedule property is situated on the south and east of plaint A schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, Narayana Hegde and the first plaintiff trespassed into plaint B schedule property during December, 1975 and reduced the same to their possession by constructing a common compound wall enclosing both plaint A and B schedule properties. The case of the plaintiffs is that they have perfected title to plaint B schedule property by adverse possession and limitation. It is alleged by the plaintiffs in the plaint that deceased Narayana Hegde and the first plaintiff had constructed a building also in plaint B schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant attempted to demolish the compound wall of the plaint B schedule property on 23/06/2010 with a view to trespass upon the said property and the suit was necessitated on account of the said reason. The relief claimed in the suit was a declaration that the plaintiffs have perfected title to plaint B schedule property by adverse possession and limitation. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into plaint B schedule property was also claimed as a consequential relief.

2. The first defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement. According to the first defendant, plaint B schedule property belonged to one Lakshminarayana Naik; that Lakshminarayana Naik was in possession and enjoyment of the said property as its absolute owner until his death and that on the death of Lakshminarayana Naik, the said property devolved on his wife Lalithamma and his children. It is also their case that on the death of Lalithamma, her rights also devolved on the children of Lakshminarayana Naik and that they sold the property to the first defendant during 2009 by virtue of Exts. B1 and B2 sale deeds. According to the first defendant, plaintiffs and Narayana Hegde were never in possession of plaint B schedule property. As regards the building claimed to have been constructed by Narayana Hegde and the first plaintiff in plaint B schedule property, it was contended by the first defendant that the said building was constructed by the first plaintiff with the permission of Lalithamma to enable her to earn a livelihood by leasing out the building. As regards the construction of the compound wall, it was contended by the first defendant that the same was constructed by the earliest common owner of plaint A and B schedule properties.

3. The second defendant who is one of the legal representatives of Lalithamma also resisted the suit by filing a separate written statement raising contentions identical to the contentions raised by the first defendant. He also asserted that by virtue of Exts. B1 and B2 sale deeds, the first defendant became the absolute owner in possession of plaint B schedule property. The second defendant also endorsed the stand of the first defendant that the building in the property was constructed by the first plaintiff with the permission of Lalithamma.

4. The Trial Court found that the plaintiffs have been in possession of plaint B schedule property for more than twelve years openly, continuously, uninterruptedly and as of right with the hostile animus against the true owners and consequently, decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiffs have perfected title to plaint B schedule property by adverse possession and limitation. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into plaint B schedule property or interfering with or disturbing